Re: [PATCH v9 00/11] PM / Domains: Support hierarchical CPU arrangement (PSCI/ARM) (a subset)

[Ulf Hansson]

On 4 October 2018 at 20:36, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4 October 2018 at 19:21, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:07:27PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> > > I don't see any dependency there, so I'll queue up the 1-3 in
>>> > > pm-domains and the 4-6 in pm-cpuidle.
>>> >
>>> > I do not see why we should merge patches 4-6 for v4.20; they add legacy
>>> > (DT bindings and related parsing code) with no user in the kernel; we
>>> > may still want to tweak them, in particular PSCI DT bindings.
>>>
>>> My impression was that 4-6 have been agreed on due to the ACKs they
>>> carry.  I'll drop them if that's not the case.
>>
>> I have not expressed myself correctly: they have been agreed (even
>> though as I said they may require some tweaking) but I see no urgency
>> of merging them in v4.20 since they have no user. They contain DT
>> bindings, that create ABI/legacy, I think it is better to have code
>> that uses them in the kernel before merging them and creating a
>> dependency that is not needed.
>
> There is already code using the new bindings, for the idle states.
> Please have look at patch 5, 6 and 11.

Should be 5, 6 and 10, sorry.

>
> Moreover, you have had plenty on time to look at the series, as those
> patches haven't changed since a very long time.
>
> May I suggest you do the review instead, so we can move things
> forward, please. The changes in the v9 series should be trivial to
> review.
>
>>
>>> > Likewise, it makes no sense to merge patches 7-8 without the rest of
>>> > the PSCI patches.
>
> Well, those patches are part of this series, because Mark wanted me to
> move the files. Is really such a big deal? I think it makes sense, no
> matter what happens afterwards.
>
> [...]
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe